Blessed Night, Loves 😊

I Pray All Is Well With Everyone… And Your Hearts And Minds Are Full Of Love, Joy, And Compassion… For All Your Brothers And Sisters In Spirit. And Brothers And Sisters In Spirit… We Are! And No Matter How Dogmatic Our Spiritual Or Religious Beliefs… The One Thing For Certain Is The Spirit Of The One Living God Active Within Every Living Being – The Immortal Spirit Of The “I AM Presence” – Animating The Living Organism! And Without That Stream Of Light And Life Within All Of Us… Our Human Forms Could Not Exist! Amen…

Give Thanks And Praises For Love And Life…

And Y’all Be Love…

Remember To Do Your Own Research…

“… The twenty-fifth of March is the period assigned by the Christian world generally for the resurrection of Christ, though some Christian writers have assigned other dates for this event. They all agree, however, that Christ rose from the dead, and that this occurred three days after the entombment. Bishop Theophilus of Cesarea remarks, relative to this event, “Since the birth of Christ is celebrated on the twenty-fifth of December… so also should the resurrection of Jesus be celebrated on the twenty-fifth of March, on whatever day of the week it may fall, the Lord having risen again on that day.”

“All the ancient Christians”, says a writer, “were persuaded that Christ was crucified on the twenty-third of March, and rose from the dead on the twenty-fifth.” And accordingly, Constantine and contemporary Christians celebrated the twenty-fifth of March with great eclat as the date of the resurrection. The twenty-third and twenty-fifth, including the twenty-fourth, would comprise a period of three days, the time of the entombment.

Now mark, Quexalcote of Mexico, Crite of Chaldea, Quirinus of Rome, Prometheus of Caucasus, Osiris of Egypt, Atys of Phrygia, and “Mithra the Mediator” of Persia, did, according to their respective histories, rise from the dead after three days’ burial, and the time of their resurrection is in several cases, fixed for the twenty-fifth of March. And there is an account more than three thousand years old of the Hindu crucified Savior Chrishna, three days after his interment, forsaking “the silent bourn, whence (as we are told), no traveler ever returns”, and laying aside the moldy cerements of the dead, again walking forth to mortal life, to be again seen, recognized, admired, and adored by his pious, devout and awe-stricken followers, and thus present to the gaze of a hoping yet doubting world, “the first fruits of the resurrection.”

… With respect to the physical resurrection of the Christian Savior, it may be observed that, aside from the physical impossibility of such an occurrence, the account, as reported to us by his four “inspired” Gospel biographers, are so palpably at variance with each other, so entirely contradictory in their reports, as to render their testimony as infallible writers utterly unworthy of credence, and impels us to the conclusion that the event is both physically and historically incredible. There is scarcely one incident or particular in which they all agree. They are at loggerheads: 1, With respect to the time of its discovery. 2, The persons who made the discovery (for no witness claims to have seen it). 3, With respect to what took place at the sepulchre. 4, What Peter saw and did there. And 5, as to what occurred afterward, having a relation to that event.

Relative to the time the witness or witnesses visited the sepulchre and learned of the resurrection, Matthew (chapter 28) tells us, “It was at the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn”; but according to Mark (16), the “Sabbath was past, and the sun was rising”; while John (chapter 20) declares, “it was yet dark.” Now there is certainly some difference between the three periods, “the dawning of the day”, “the rising of the Sun”, and “the darkness of night.” If the writers were divinely inspired, there would be a perfect agreement.

With respect to the persons who first visited the sepulchre, Matthew states that it was Mary Magdalene and another Mary; but Luke says it was “Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women”; while, according to John (and he virtually reiterates it), Mary Magdalene went alone. It will be observed, then, that the first “inspired” and “infallible” witness testifies there were two women; the second that there were four; and the third witness declares there was but one. What beautiful harmony! No court in the civilized world would accept such discordant testimony!

And in relation to what took place at the tomb, Matthew testifies that “the angel of the Lord” sat upon a stone at the door of the sepulchre, and told the women their Lord was risen. But Luke steps forward here and avers that instead of an angel they found two men there, not outside, but inside, and not sitting, but standing. But Mark sets the testimony of both these “inspired” witnesses aside by affirming there was but one man there, and he was sitting. While Matthew says “they”, St. John says “she” (speaking of the person or persons who left the sepulchre).

According to Matthew, the angel who rolled away the stone from the sepulchre sent a message to the disciples. But Mark affirms that it was not an “angel” outside, but a “young man” inside, who did this. And here the question naturally arises: Why was it necessary for a being who could say, “I have power to lay down my life and take it up again” (John), to have an angel to roll away the stone from the sepulchre. Certainly, if he possessed such omnipotent power, he needed no aid from any being to perform such an act. And relative to Peter’s visit to the tomb, there is a total disparity in the testimony of the witnesses. According to Luke, he did not go into the sepulchre, but only stooped down and looked in. But Mark affirms he did go in, and that it was the disciple who went with him who stooped down.

And with respect to the events which occurred immediately subsequent to the resurrection, there is no less discrepancy, no nearer agreement, in the testimony of the evangelical witnesses. Matthew says that when Christ’s disciples first met him after the resurrection, they worshiped him, and held him by the feet (Matthew 28:9). Strange, indeed, and wholly incredible, if John is a reliable witness, for he affirms he did not allow even his best and dearest friend (Mary) to touch him. And then John combats this testimony of his, by declaring he invited the skeptical Thomas, not only to touch him, but to thrust his hand into his side for tangible proof of his identity. And why, let us ask here, was not the skeptical Thomas damned for his doubting, when we, who live thousands of miles from the place, and nearly two thousand years from the time, are often told by the priesthood we must, “believe or be damned?” And if Thomas was really convinced by this occurrence, or if it ever took place, why have we no account of his subsequent life? What good was effected by his convincement if he never said or did anything afterward?

John tells us Mary first saw Christ, after his resurrection, at the tomb, but Matthew says it was on her way home she first saw him. We are told by Luke (24:37) that when Christ appeared to his disciples on a certain occasion, they were frightened, supposing it to be a spirit. But John (20:20) says they were glad. Which must we believe? According to Matthew, the disciples were all present on this occasion; but according to John, Thomas was not there.

Here, let it be noted that none of the narrators claim to have seen Christ rise from the tomb, nor to have got it from anybody who did see it. The only proof in this case is their declaration, “It came to pass.” And we are prompted to ask here, how “it came to pass”, that the chief priests and pharisees cherished sufficient faith in Christ’s resurrection to set a watch for it, as Matthew reports, when his own disciples were too faithless in such an event to be present, or to believe he had risen after the report reached their ears; for we are told some doubted. (See Matthew 28)

And how came Matthew to know the soldiers were bribed to say Christ’s body was stolen away by his disciples, when the disclosures of such a secret would have been death under the Roman government. And their confession of being asleep, as related by Matthew, would have subjected them to the same fatal penalty by the civil rulers of Rome. And if the soldiers were all asleep, can we not suggest several ways the body may have disappeared without being restored to life?

And here we would ask, if Christ rose from the dead in order to convince the world of his divine power, why did not the event take place in public? Why was it seen only by a few credulous and interested disciples? And if such an astonishing and miraculous event did occur, why does not one of the numerous contemporary writers of those times make any allusion to it? Neither Pliny, Tacitus, nor Josephus, who detail the events very minutely, not only of those times, but of that very country, says a word about such a wonder-exciting occurrence. This fact of itself entirely overthrows the credibility of the story.

And the fact that several Christian sects, which flourished near those times, as the Corinthians and Carpocratians, etc., rejected the story in toto, furnishes another powerful argument for discrediting it. And then add to this fact that his own chosen followers were upbraided for their unbelief in the matter. And what was Christ doing during the forty days between his resurrection and ascension, that he should only be seen a few times, and but a few minutes at a time, and by but a few persons, and those interested?

And we would ask, likewise, What more can be proved by Christ’s physical resurrection than that of the resurrection of Lazarus, the widow’s son, and several cases related in the Old Testament, or the numerous cases reported in oriental history? And what analogy is there in the resurrection of the dead body of a perfect and self-existent God, and that, of vile man? And why should Christ be called “the first fruits of the resurrection”, when so many cases are reported as occurring before his? And why do Christians build their hopes of immortality almost entirely upon Christ’s alleged resurrection, in view of the numerous facts we have cited, showing it to be a mere sandy foundation?

Of course, no person who believes in modern spiritualism will discredit the story of Christ being visually recognized after his death as a spirit, for they have ocular proof that many such cases have occurred within the last decade of years. But it is the story of his physical resurrection we are combating, the reanimation of his flesh and bones after having been subjected three days to the laws of decomposition. Neither science nor sense can indorse such a story.

It was a very easy matter, and very natural to mistake Christ’s spiritual body for his physical body; for such mistakes have been made a thousand times in the world’s history. Is it not strange, in view of the countless defects in the story of Christ’s physical resurrection as enumerated above, that the orthodox Christian world should rely upon it as the great sheet anchor of their faith, and as their chief, and almost their only hope, of immortal life?

The different scriptural accounts of the ascension of Christ are, like the different stories of the resurrection, quite contradictory, and, hence, entitled to as little credit. In Luke (24), he is represented as ascending on the evening of the third day after the crucifixion. But the writer of Acts (1:3) says he did not ascend till forty days after his resurrection; while, according to his own declaration to the thief on the cross, “This day shalt thou be with me in paradise”, he must have ascended on the same day of his crucifixion. Which statement must we accept as inspired, or what is proved by such contradictory testimony? Which must we believe, Paul’s declaration that he was seen by above five hundred of the brethren at once (1 Corinthians 15:6), or the statement of the author of the Acts (1:15), that there were but one hundred and twenty brethren in all after that period?

How would his ascension do anything toward proving his divinity, unless it also proves the divinity of Enoch and Elijah, who are reported to have ascended long prior to that era? As these stories of the ascension of Christ, according to Lardner, were written many years after his crucifixion, is it not hence probable, they grew out of similar stories relative to the heathen Gods, long previously prevalent in oriental countries?

As these gospel writers could not have been present to witness the ascension, as it must have occurred before their time of active life, does not this fact of itself seriously damage the credibility of the accounts, and more especially as neither Mark nor Luke, who are the only reporters of the occurrence, were not disciples of Christ at the time, while Matthew and John, who were, say nothing about it? Another fact which casts a shade, on the credibility of the story.”

The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors, by Kersey Graves, 1875

To Pass Time – Godmode